4 ms·
Ah, another web standard™ from Chrome. Just what we needed!
by meindnoch 1y ago
Ah, another web standard™ from Chrome. Just what we needed!
- rafram 1y agoLike it or not, the current web standardization process requires implementations to be shipped in multiple browsers before something can enter the spec.
- epolanski 1y agoIn canary or experimental flags.
- bornfreddy 1y agoMultiple browser engines or just multiple browsers?
- leptons 1y agoInternet Explorer first implemented XMLHttpRequest, and then it became a standard. Without browser makers innovating we'de be waiting a long, long time for the W3C to make any progress, if any at all.
- giantrobot 1y agoA majority of Chrome's "standard" pushes have the alternate use of better browser fingerprinting. Ones of end users might use WebMIDI to work with musical devices but every scammy AdTech company will use it to fingerprint users. Same with most of their other "standards". It's almost like Google is an AdTech firm that happens to make a web browser.
- leptons 1y agoI honestly don't care about fingerprinting. It's too late to worry about that, because there will always be a way to do it, to some extent. And me using a browser with WebMIDI only means I'm one of the 3.4 billion people using Chrome. There are better ways to "fingerprint" people online. Detecting browser APIs is not a particularly good one.
- giantrobot 1y agoIt's not the presence of WebMIDI that's the problem. It's the devices it can enumerate. Same with their other Web* APIs that want to enumerate devices outside the browser's normal sandboxing.
- leptons 1y agoSo what? You need to give access to each website that wants to interact with WebMIDI. It doesn't just let any website poll the devices. It's no different than the location API or any other API - the user has to explicitly grant access to each website that wants to use the API. If you don't trust the site, don't give it access. It's really as simple as that. Sorry chicken little, the sky is not falling.